Endings are difficult. Do you leave the story open-ended? Do you lead into another story? Do you connect the story back to the beginning? Do you have an epilogue? There are a lot of questions and no answers. Ambiguous endings work from time to time, but so do endings that give a definite end to the characters. There is no one right way to tell a story, and there is no one right way to end a story. Watchmen’s final issue opens with six splash pages showing the destruction that Ozymandias has caused in New York city. There is a bit of a scuffle back at Ozymandias’ secret base as Silk Spectre and Doctor Manhattan get in on the fight. But, for the most part, the superheroics of typical superhero comics are not found here. Watchmen’s ending works well because the last third of the issue deals with Ozymandias potentially being right.

The problem with many endings is that they become too simple. This is especially true with superhero stories, which usually end with the hero and the villain punching each other until the villain either dies or gives up. The writer tries to wrap up the story, so the story gets stripped down. But, Watchmen goes in the opposite direction—it gets more complicated in the final chapter. There’s a light scuffle in the first half, but then news stories come in on Ozymandias’ many TVs. People are scared that there is an alien presence threatening Earth. The United States and Russia begin to talk about peace. What’s the point of countries waging war only to be destroyed by aliens? Russia and the United States come together, and nuclear Armageddon is averted. Ozymandias’ plan worked. Instead of going with the easier ending of Doctor Manhattan coming in and crushing Ozymandias and the world finding out about Ozymandias’ actions, the comic pushes into unknown territory. Was Ozymandias right? Are the heroes still heroes for lying to the world? And who does watch the watchmen? It seems that in many superhero stories, if not many action/adventure stories, once the climax occurs, the story simplifies. Watchmen succeeds because the final issue furthers the themes and leaves the reader with something to think about.

There seems to be a lot of focus on happy or sad endings. But, to me, a good ending is neither. To me, the ending is the lost shot at making your story memorable. Some readers might prefer a happy ending, and other readers might prefer a sad one, but if the ending is complex and leaves the reader not knowing how he or she feels, then the story will be one the reader needs to think about. If the ending is totally satisfying, then the reader just continues on with his or her life. In Watchmen, Rorschach is killed, Doctor Manhattan leaves Earth, Ozymandias continues on, and Night Owl and Silk Spectre are in a relationship and talk about continuing adventuring. There are a lot of questions and what ifs to play with the ending, allowing readers to continue the story in their own heads. The final sequence involves Rorschach’s journal, which he mailed before confronting Ozymandias, possibly being chosen by the young newspaper intern, Seymour, for some filler. The beauty of this sequence is that Moore and Gibbons do not show Seymour picking up the journal, nevertheless publishing it. The journal is in a pile of papers—it stands out because we as readers recognize it, but Seymour’s hand is just shown hovering about the pile. It leaves the reader questioning whether the journal will be published or not. And, if it is published, will anyone believe it? If it is published, will Night Owl and Silk Spectre tell the truth, or will they lie to protect the world Ozymandias has created? There’s a world after the story we as readers are given. There is a world before the story, and after the story.

Watchmen’s ending is not truly ambiguous, however. Readers can play what if, but what occurs at the end is clear. Ambiguous endings can fail because events can be taken multiple ways or the story’s ending is unclear. With Watchmen, there are possibilities, but the ending that occurs is very clear. Questions are left for the reader to consider—questions about Ozymandias’ plan, about what Night Owl and Silk Spectre will do now, about whether the newspaper employees will publish Rorschach’s journal, and if so, will the world take it seriously. Any answers to these questions are valid. One reader may walk away knowing that Rorschach’s journal is published, that Ozymandias’ plan ultimately failed. Another reader, like me, believes the journal will change nothing, published or not. But both readers are correct. There’s nothing to really read between the lines—the writer isn’t trying to hide the true ending from the reader. Lives continue on, situations may change, but there s clarity in the ending. It seems to me that the most difficult aspect of writing an ending is to be clear, yet leave certain story elements still up in the air. Will the character’s actions produce lasting change?

_______

Photo by John King

Sean Ironman (Episode 102) earned his MFA at the University of Central Florida. Currently, he teaches creative nonfiction and digital media at the University of Central Arkansas as a visiting professor. His work can be read in The Writer’s Chronicle, Redivider, and Breakers: A Comics Anthology, among others.

So we have come to this. The penultimate issue of Watchmen. The issue when the villain is truly revealed and his master plan is set. Although a few pages are given over to some of the residents of New York City, most of the issue is set aside for Night Owl and Rorschach’s confrontation with Ozymandias, the comic’s villain. There is some action, with Ozymandias easily taking care of the two heroes. (I must say, on a side note, how interesting it is to make Ozymandias so much more powerful that the heroes in this issue. At no point, do the heroes really even stand a chance at stopping Ozymandias. I like it.) The problem that many stories have, not just superhero stories, is that the villain ends up explaining the whole plot to the heroes. A lot happens in Watchmen, and readers do need to understand how each piece fits, but usually, there is no actual story-based reason for a character to lay out the plot. Yet, here in the penultimate issue, Ozymandias tells Rorschach and Night Owl everything. And it works! The issue is one of the best of Watchmen.

The comic sidesteps the exposition aspect of revealing Ozymandias’ master plan by making the revelation less about revelation and more of a persuasive argument. Ozymandias, for all his power, does not show aggression toward his old teammates. When Rorschach and Night Owl first approach, Ozymandias is eating. He only strikes Rorschach and Night Owl in defense. Once the heroes are on the floor, Ozymandias asks, “Now…what can I do for you?” Ozymandias isn’t looking for a fight. He truly believes that what he is doing is the best thing for the world, and instead of beating Rorschach and Night Owl, he is trying to convince them. He wants his old teammates on his side. When Night Owl asks Ozymandias what he’s trying to do, Ozymandias responds, “What we all tried to do after our initial struggle to find our feet. I’m trying to improve the world.”

Ozymandias doesn’t just reveal what he’s trying to do, but what he has done. He goes back to his beginnings as a masked vigilante. He talks about meeting The Comedian, about meeting his old teammates. Ozymandias is building an argument. The physical fights that occur between his words are because Rorschach attacks him while he is speaking. Ozymandias wants to help the world, just in a different way than Rorschach and Night Owl. The death of a few to save the many. Ozymandias only got Doctor Manhattan off world because Doctor Manhattan is too powerful, and The Comedian was killed because he discovered Ozymandias’ plan. Rorschach asks, “Blake’s murder. You confess?” and Ozymandias responds with “Confession implies penitence. I merely regret his accidental involvement.” Ozymandias, in a way, is right in distancing himself from emotion. A doctor cannot get emotionally involved with his or her patients. Perhaps a superhero must be objective. Ozymandias does not revel in what he has done, but he believes that by destroying the present system in place then the future will be secured.

At the end of the day, the issue works when Rorschach and Night Owl refuse to let Adrian succeed. They have listened to his pitch, but they won’t let him do it. And, in response, Ozymandias utters one of the best lines of Watchmen, “Dan, I’m not a republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I’d explain my master stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago.” The heroes are too late. Ozymandias isn’t trying to convince Rorschach and Night Owl to help him. He’s trying to convince them to understand why he did what he did. Being far from New York City, the location of the attack, the heroes don’t realize it’s too late to stop the attack.

The problem with the villain explaining the whole master plan is that, of course, the hero is going to get free and stop the villain. The villain is really just telling the hero how to stop the plan. But, here, the trope is turned on its head. As Ozymandias is laying out what he has done and why, readers will rely on what they have learned from stories so far, that the heroes will win. The villain’s plan will not succeed. But, the reader is proved wrong in Watchmen. It makes the comic more memorable and more shocking, not by the murder of the residents of New York City, but by making the reader feel comfortable and then pulling the rug out from underneath. Without Ozymandias revealing his master plan, even if the same attack was set and went off without the heroes standing a chance, the issue would fall flat. A surprise only works if readers are led to believe one thing first. By relying on the cliché of the overly talkative villain, Watchmen brings something new to the table.

_______

Photo by John King

Sean Ironman (Episode 102) earned his MFA at the University of Central Florida. Currently, he teaches creative nonfiction and digital media at the University of Central Arkansas as a visiting professor. His work can be read in The Writer’s Chronicle, Redivider, and Breakers: A Comics Anthology, among others.

Eventually, a story must come together—well, at least a good one. All the subplots and character interactions must mean something. Many writers seem to try to make their story “realistic.” More like life. But, life is meaningless, and stories help us make sense of the randomness of life. At some point, stories come together and give readers/viewers something to hang onto. As Watchmen approaches its climax, issue ten brings the disparate plots together. We get Nixon preparing to possibly start nuclear armageddon, Night Owl and Rorschach growing closer like real partners and understanding one another, Ozymandias preparing and heading to his secret base, the pirate comic featuring the “hero” returning to his home town, the missing scientists and artists boarding a ship thinking they are going home only to discover that it is a trap and are blown away, the solution to the “mask killer” theory of Rorschach’s as Night Owl stumbles onto financial files on Ozymandias’ computer, Rorschach mailing in the journal he has been writing this whole time to the New Frontiersman, and Night Owl and Rorschach approaching Ozymandias’ secret base to confront the potential villain. A lot happens this issue, and even though Watchmen is typically dense, this issue features a lot of moving parts to close out parts of the story and set the reader up for the climax. This is also the part of a story that I feel is the most difficult to pull off. A lot of moving parts can show the reader the strings to a story, the writer as puppet master behind the scenes.

The closer the plots are to one another the better they will match up and the less strings a reader will be able to notice. For example, Rorschach mailing his journal and the solution to his “mask killer” theory directly relates to one another. Before going off to confront the possible villain, Rorschach mails his journal, afraid that he might not make it back. In instances such as these, subplots coming together make sense. Readers may feel fulfilled with the plot developments closing, but there’s no need to think of the writer trying to end plots because the developments make sense on a character level. Readers are still in the story.

But, over developments, such as Ozymandias heading out to his secret base, Nixon preparing for a possible holocaust, and the end of the missing scientists and artists plot, border on coincidental. So, right when Night Owl and Rorschach need Ozymandias’ help and accidentally stumble on to the fact that Ozymandias is behind The Comedian’s death is when Ozymandias, unaware of his old teammates’ actions, leaves town to complete his master plan? If Ozymandias was still around, then Night Owl and Rorschach would not have accessed Ozymandias’ computer and would have never solved the case. Ozymandias has to leave for that plot point to work. Readers may begin to see the story’s strings. But, why does this work? Why do readers just follow this thread in Watchmen? In the thirty years since the comic’s publication, as well as a major blockbuster film adaptation, I have never heard of anyone complaining about this plot point. So, why do readers buy this, when in many other stories, readers would call out such coincidental actions? For one, and I think this is very important, there’s a strong payoff in the next two issues. I believe readers, at least many of them, are fine with overlooking the shuffling of the game board to set up something epic. And Watchmen succeeds in that. When there is little payoff, then readers begin to question the reasons behind it, and because those reasons don’t produce a stronger narrative, writers face a backlash. Secondly, for all the importance the scene has to the solution to the long-running plot of The Comedian’s murder, the comic has become much more than that mystery. The comic began with The Comedian’s death, but since then, the comic has opened up and The Comedian is barely mentioned anymore. The scene of Rorschach and Night Owl stumbling onto the truth is only three pages long. By moving onto other story elements and not building this one moment up to the reader, readers are less likely to look so hard on the scene. The scene is written as if it were just something inconsequential. Confronting Ozymandias is the important moment, finding out that the heroes need to confront Ozymandias is something that needs to happen, but that isn’t really important in the long run.

Another coincidental moment, and perhaps one that is more difficult to pull off, is the end of the missing scientists and artists storyline. This story has existed on the edges of the comic. None of the main characters even seem to care. Most of the information has been given to readers through newspaper articles and TV programs that are on in the background. Here, in issue ten, the storyline ends in a two-page scene. There’s a ship departing the island where the scientists and artists have been kept, no exactly prisoner though. They seem to have been promised a great deal of money and now think that they will be free to continue their lives. Then, a bomb is discovered on the ship, it blows, and everyone is killed. This may seem coincidental, and it is. At the moment when the heroes will soon close in, the biggest evidence against the villain is destroyed. But, this moment has to happen—well, not necessarily the bomb, but the solution to the mystery. The reason this coincidental moment works is that it does not actually affect the story. At all. It never changes one of the main characters’ path. By being so inconsequential to the story, the scene actually succeeds. It’s just information for the reader. The main characters, other than Ozymandias who makes it happen, never actually find out about it. The plot has existed in the background this whole time and it ends in the background. The missing scientists and artists help explain how Ozymandias creates this master plan of his, which we’ll find out more about next issue, so it’s necessary to the story, but it never actually changes anything. It’s an explanation more than an actual subplot.

At some point, coincidence is essential to storytelling. Some reader will always be able to ask questions like, “So, Silk Spectre picks this very moment to leave Doctor Manhattan, who wouldn’t have left Earth if she were still around?” Or, “Obi Wan Kenobi just happens to find Han Solo, a rogue with a heart of gold, in the cantina?” Or, “Superman just happens to land in Kansas as the Kents drive by, instead of in water?” At some point, readers just have to buy that certain story elements will occur. Any story can have holes poked in it. Coincidence in storytelling fails when it affects the main storyline, when it affects the protagonist(s). Readers then see the strings, see the writer working the story into a certain position, instead of allowing the story to evolve naturally.

_______

Photo by John King

Sean Ironman (Episode 102) earned his MFA at the University of Central Florida. Currently, he teaches creative nonfiction and digital media at the University of Central Arkansas as a visiting professor. His work can be read in The Writer’s Chronicle, Redivider, and Breakers: A Comics Anthology, among others.

Watchmen, for the most part, is devoid of action. There are blips on the radar, but the comic is very much a bunch of talking heads.

But the eighth issue is the most action packed. We get Rorschach taking on Big Figure and his henchmen, Night Owl and Silk Spectre breaking Rorschach from prison, and the murder of Hollis Mason, the original Night Owl. The issue is bloody and violent, but upon re-reading it, I was in awe of how little Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons show the violence. Many beginner writers go overboard with action scenes, and they could do worse than studying the eighth issue in finding a way to be violent without showing too much. This goes for every aspect of a story, really. When does a writer cut away? What does a writer show to the reader?

In the first action scene of the issue, Big Figure, a crime boss from the 1960s that Night Owl and Rorschach put in jail, uses the prison riot distracting guards to his benefit and goes to Rorchach’s cell with two henchmen. Rorschach pisses off one of the henchmen, who tries to grab Rorschach through the bars. Rorschach ties his hands so that Big Figure can’t open the cell. Wanting revenge, Big Figure has the second henchman cut the first henchman’s throat so they can get to the lock. In one panel, we see the second henchman with a shiv to the first henchman’s throat. But, we don’t see the throat cut. We get a shot of Rorschach with a stone cold look on his face as blood splashes onto his stomach.

Why change perspective there? Does it have something to do with the reader not being able to handle the grisly scene? Some might say so, but I wouldn’t. If someone didn’t want to read a comic with violence like this, they would not have advanced to the eighth issue. And if they miraculously did and still did not want to see violence, they still get a scene where a person’s throat is cut. They might not see the knife cut through skin, but they know what’s going on. The slitting of the throat is not shown because it does not matter. It’s unimportant. Skip the door and all that.

The henchman is barely a character. Readers are shown Rorschach’s response. He’s one of the main characters of the comic. And his response is that he has none. He doesn’t even acknowledge the man dying. The moment is used to support Rorschach’s characterization, not to give the audience a violent encounter. That’s the difference between violence being used gratuitously and violence serving the story.

Later, violence is used in a similar fashion when Night Owl and Silk Spectre proceed to rescue Rorschach from prison. At first, Rorschach refuses to leave until he settles the score with Big Figure, who has run into a bathroom. Big Figure’s death is not shown. Instead, readers stay with Night Owl and Silk Spectre as they wait in the hall. Again, Big Figure is not important. It might be “cool” to get a death scene, but the story does not require it. The story needs to keep the main characters front and center. So, while the reader can understand what is going on in the bathroom, the reader would not understand what Silk Spectre and Night Owl discuss while waiting. It’s more important for the reader to stay with those two and their conversation than to follow Rorschach. There is nothing surprising about what happens to Big Figure. Skip the door.

Now, the final action scene of the issue—the death of Hollis Mason, the original Night Owl, is a bit different. No main character is present. One could argue that the scene does not affect the main plot of Watchmen, and one would be right in that assumption. Yet, it still is an important scene. It deals with the aftereffects of the main plot. It gives the story weight.

In Watchmen, much of the public dislikes superheroes. A gang blames Doctor Manhattan and the other vigilantes for the troubles of the world, for the world being on the verge of nuclear Armageddon. Hollis Mason released a book years earlier revealing he was Night Owl. The gang, not understanding there is a new Night Owl, go to kill Hollis because they think they are stopping a superhero. They break into his house and beat him to death.

Instead of seeing him die, the scene is cut up. Readers are given one panel of the fight, and then one of Hollis in the past as Night Owl fighting criminals. Due to the break in the scene, the sequence becomes about more than just the death of Hollis Mason. It becomes about consequences.

About the aftermath. Doctor Manhattan, Rorschach, Night Owl, and Silk Spectre can’t save everyone. Their existence, in itself, is capable of bringing pain to others. And what happens years later to these superheroes, when they’re old and forgotten?

Watchmen, at its very heart, is a study about superheroes in the real world. The consequences of their existence. The effect they have on the world. That’s what makes Watchmen so interesting. But, superheroes can’t just affect the world in a good way. That’s not interesting. That’s not real. Bad things will happen, like they do with Hollis Mason. No one can save the entire world.

_______

Photo by John King

Sean Ironman (Episode 102) earned his MFA at the University of Central Florida. Currently, he teaches creative nonfiction and digital media at the University of Central Arkansas as a visiting professor. His work can be read in The Writer’s Chronicle, Redivider, and Breakers: A Comics Anthology, among others.

At the end of the fifth issue, Rorschach was caught by the police and unmasked. The sixth issue of Watchmen deals with the fallout and gives Rorschach center stage. While the other characters kind of sit around, Rorschach is the active one. He is the only one concerned with who killed The Comedian. So far, he has been the hero of the comic. At the same time, Rorschach is screwed up. He’s barely sane. No one seems to want much to do with him, including his ex-partner, and he slinks through the shadows in his mask and trench coat. But, readers have yet to find out why. Why is Rorschach the way he is? Readers, at times, do need to understand why the characters readers are following act the way they act. Character motivation is important for readers to know. But, the issue with backstory is that exposition is boring for readers. Get back to the murder mystery. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons have their cake and eat it too. They get to keep the story moving forward and reveal Rorschach’s backstory by introducing another character.

Say hello to Dr. Malcolm Long, Rorschach’s prison psychiatrist.

When Doctor Manhattan was given a focus in issue four, he was the main character of that issue. But, in issue 6, Rorschach’s issue, Dr. Malcolm Long is the main character. Rorschach is relegated to a supporting role. Think of it like a novel that is told from multiple characters’ point of views. When one character takes over, the others become supporting characters for the chapter. The issue is refocused so that the story is no longer Rorschach dealing with being in prison but now it is Dr. Long’s attempt to understand and help Rorschach. This allows backstory to be given directly to the reader and still keep the story going because as we learn more about Rorschach, Dr. Long is getting closer (or so he believes) to his goal. The issue basically acts as a mini-story in the larger Watchmen comic.

Scenes in which Dr. Long does not appear in are from notes he is given after the fact. For example, a scene depicting Rorschach in line for food beat another inmate after said inmate attempts to stab him. The reader is shown the scene as if the reader was following Rorschach, but the scene is introduced with a narration caption from Dr. Long’s point of view. “The Deputy Warden just called. Apparently Kovacs was involved in an incident today, just after he’d seen me. It happened during lunch, in the canteen…” The comics medium allows for the scene to be presented in a visual manner and not stay in Dr. Long’s language. There is more leeway here than in prose, but the concept remains the same. By introducing the scene from Dr. Long’s point of view, the story stays focused on showing Dr. Long’s analysis of Rorschach, rather than just giving readers Rorschach in prison. There is a story to follow.

If Dr. Long’s story only featured Rorschach, the issue would fail. If it is indeed supposed to be Dr. Long’s story, then readers need to be given his whole story. He needs to become a real person and be just as well rounded as the other characters in Watchmen. Throughout the issue, readers are presented with scenes from Dr. Long’s personal life. It begins innocently with Dr. Long working late hours at home and his wife makes him take a break. A few pages later, the scene is repeated. Only this time, Dr. Long refuses to take a break and his wife goes to bed angry. The story readers are following quickly becomes not one of Dr. Long helping Rorschach but one of Dr. Long being corrupted by Rorschach. He begins to see only the horrors of the world, like Rorschach, and stop believing in the goodness of people. At the end of the issue, nothing has changed with Rorschach—his own plot has not been moved forward. But, Dr. Long is broken. The final sequence features Dr. Long staring closely at a Rorschach test in the dark and the comic ends with an all black panel. “We are alone. There is nothing else.” The issue is not taken totally away from Rorschach, however. Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons understand still that this issue is one piece of a larger story. By having Rorschach be the reason this seemingly fine doctor breaks down makes Rorschach’s own journey more interesting and relatable. Readers are put in Dr. Long’s place. We are also trying to understand Rorschach. And at the end, just like Dr. Long, we too could not handle the horrors Rorschach faces.

_______

Photo by John King

Sean Ironman (Episode 102) earned his MFA at the University of Central Florida. Currently, he teaches creative nonfiction and digital media at the University of Central Arkansas as a visiting professor. His work can be read in The Writer’s Chronicle, Redivider, and Breakers: A Comics Anthology, among others.